So, in a nutshell, Denver’s mayor-elect, Michael Hancock, is alleged to have hired $300 an hour hookers on at least three occasions between 2004 and 2006. Hancock, of course, denies it all categorically, and suggests that believing what a pimp says over what he, Hancock, says is just simply ridiculous. He is, after all, the mayor-elect, having garnered 58% of the June 7th vote totals. The “pimp,” in this case is the former owner of a high-end, exclusive bordello that catered to Denver’s movers and shakers.

Let’s pause here for a moment and look at Hancock’s 58%, shall we. This was an all-mail election with 300,601 ballots sent to eligible voters. About 41% of those ballots were returned, or 122,756. Now, if I’m doing my math right, Hancock was elected mayor of Denver by about 23% of the Denver electorate. Ahem… No, nothing unusual here. As a matter of fact, I suppose a 41% turnout for any mayoral election in recent history is probably better than or at least not a lot worse than prior turnouts. Majority rule? Democracy in action? A mandate for Hancock? No, of course not. Rather the ignoble reality of apathy amongst voters. Or perhaps a kind of a who cares mentality from many Denver citizens who realize that Democratic rule of our dear city–no matter who is at the helm– will result in a business as usual mentality that espouses all those lovely Democratic principles we all know so well…that is, if the official “kitchen cabinet” that has served the last three Democratic mayors–the law firm of Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Shrek– approve of the same. Incidentally, there is a fellow named Bruce James who is a managing partner in that august law firm, and, Surprise!, is Michael Hancock’s attorney in this little carnal imbroglio.

If you want background, here it is: Complete Colorado, Denver Post. Although I don’t watch local news stations, it’s my understanding there are numerous videos that address Hancock’s, um, pickle.

Okay. Please know that I don’t have any inside track on whether or not the allegations against mayor-elect Hancock are true or false. I voted for him, for heaven’s sake, not because I believed he would bring anything different to the mayor’s chair than those–at least the last three–who have preceded him there. No, I voted for him because it became apparent to me that Chris Romer, his opponent in the runoff election, was a wee bit more oily, a wee bit more, oh–how should I say this?–sleazy than Hancock. I never shirk my civic responsibility by not voting. I always vote. And, alas, most of the votes I cast are for the lesser of two evils. (Yes, I know, I’m not much different than the majority of folks who, like me, exercise their civic responsibility by pinching their nose and pulling the lever that is less stinky, less unsavory.)

Yeah, I know. Do any of us really expect more or less from our politicians. That’s not a question. I already know the answer. Is this where we are with Michael Hancock?

I cannot help but hearken back to the classics of politicians’ denials: I am not a crook! I did not have sex with that woman! I have a very wide stance! Ahem…etc. etc. etc.

I guess the upshot of all this is that Michael Hancock promised the Denver Post and Nine News that he would expose–in the interest of complete transparency, and to vindicate his good name–his cell phone and bank records for the period he is alleged to have visited–a kind word, visited–these high-priced whores. However, Surprise!, Hancock has reneged on this promise, citing his right to personal privacy, and, again, why should citizens of Denver believe a pimp rather than the mayor-elect.

I have to say it: Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!

No, I’ve not made any conclusions about this whole thing. But then, well, who among us cannot help but assume that, yes, politicians will be politicians; the power elite will protect its own, and powerful men will, inevitably, seek confirmation of their virility in one way or another.

“Reigning like fine politicians
Dressed up in perfect disguise
Pushing their science and fiction
Mixing the truth with the lies.”

What more can be said at this point? Not much, I suppose. Transparency, Michael? Yes, that would be refreshing. Really, really refreshing. In fact, if that transparency were to be forthcoming, then surely we could rule out any suggestion that your essential character tends more toward the yoyo, bozo and bimbo category. We might even consider the hero thing. Well, maybe the hero thing.

..When I asked whether that meant he also believed in evolution I got this response from campaign .Candidates were asked during a quickfire round at a forum whether they believed in evolution Michael answered I believe in God and before he could expand on that the moderator moved on..The complete answer is Yes Michael believes in evolution. I just asked the the question..So why would this matter other than the fact that Hancock Its pretty obvious that whatever Hancock really thinks creationism or intelligent design wont be taught in Denver schools. But you can ask yourself this Would you trust your city to a guy who thinks the earth is 6 000 to 10 000 years old thats what the young earth creationists believe Im not sure which kind of creationist Hancock denies being and might have trouble differentiating between science and religion?